First of all, no one truly deserves to die, I'm not going to argue that. But what about those predators who think people deserve to die? Hardened, uncaught criminals who love to kill people? Their always going to be able to get guns somehow -- it's a rather unpleasant fact of life. I'm sorry to say, but you'll have to live with it.
Second, back to your note of accidental deaths. It's unfortunate that these happen, yes. But I'd like to see your evidence of the so-called "many accidents involved with guns." I'm always listening to news. It's extremely rare that I hear of any accidental cases, and compared to abortions -- the largest killer of Americans compared to anything else, even war, over the last years -- or murders the number is minuscule.
Third, taking away people's not only guns, but all firearms in general. If you take away the common people's guns, their power to fight back in not the pleasure of killing but self defense, then there will be more deaths than ever. And aside from that, read the 2nd Amendment, please. People who earn their Right to Carry permit most always have good reason for it. For example, a local conservative talk radio show host has a permit to carry a gun due to the fact that there are people threatening to hurt not only him, but also his family. In fact, there was an occasion where he had to be escorted by police out of the event because of a mob of people who hate him. That's an infringement on free speech.
Fourth, and quickly I want to review a small section of the 2nd Amendment. It clearly reads that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Obama's making a huge mistake in greatly hampering our military -- our very nation's ability to defend itself. Don't get me wrong on this little comment, though, I don't hate Obama just because he's a Democrat. Well, more of a Socialist if you analyze what all he's done, or lack of what he's done, over the past years.
Fifth, I'd like to review my earlier comment on free speech. President Ronald Reagan repealed the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" years ago from the beginning of his presidency. Before that time, the censorship doctrine restricted people from publicly -- whether out in the public, on the radio, television, or any other way -- voicing their opinion without showing the other side to. Basically, it completely disallowed the growth of free opinion and public voice. Quoting the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In my opinion, whether you think it credible or not, is that gun control is a step towards infringement on free speech. The Liberal agenda is pushing to bring back the Censorship Doctrine, but now it's specifically for talk radio. This is where many conservatives do well, so to no surprise this is what party democrats and liberals would just love to shut down. With the previous election's democratic sweep this seems like a war to completely shut down not only those with conservative ideology, but maybe even GoP.
Sixth and lastly, "If you banish guns there would be less weapons." That statement is true, very true. Only bodyguards -- well, maybe not even then -- and your all-mighty, corrupted, untouchable politicians on both sides would be able to have guns. But again, as I mentioned at the very beginning of this debate, it would most certainly not stop criminals from murdering people. Even if they were not cunning enough to find a way to steal a gun, they could get some other weapon, like a knife. A beautiful kitchen knife could be turned into a killing weapon in an instant. Controlling gun limitations would, if anything, raise the deaths of innocent citizens trying to protect themselves. And not only would it raise the deaths, but also other criminal activities which I'd not care to mention for now.

Due to girlwithgoat's forfeit -- which she informed me was her barely-working computer's fault -- I have nothing to argue this round because she was unable to post a reply within the allotted time span. (gibsonm496 commented on this before I did since I'm trying to use up as much time as possible.)

After reading all of the comments of this debate I would like to add that you are failing to observe that your thinking applies to other things (sorry that statement is confusing). You were saying that any one could get a gun even if you banned them. Then you said that there are license rules and the ability to track guns. Using your own theory couldn't you say that criminals could find a way to get licenses and could steal someone else's gun so that it would be tracked back to an innocent citizen?

Additionally, in the comments you stated that I had no proof that there were accidental shootings, and you were correct. Now I do. Here is some text directly from a report, "Investigators say Pharell Hinton, 3, somehow got his father's gun and accidentaly shot himself". Listen to this http://abclocal.go.com... .

This debate seems to be just forfits. I will not address any other facts unless my opponents shows intrest in this debate.

To start, it seems that your entire conclusion is based upon comments, am I wrong? This is the real debate, please respond accordingly by giving me a slap in the face with a reply to an earlier round.

I feel a great need to correct your statement of "in the comments you stated that I had no proof that there were accidental shootings, and you were correct". What I stated in the comments was that you couldn't possibly be able to find proof of shootings, AFTER guns had been banned. They have not been banned, so the attempt would result in hypothesis. I never had any doubt that you would be unable to find proof of accidental shootings -- of course they occur, as I have already stated. But this argument is not specifically confined to accidental shootings, even though you seem to keep leaning futilely towards that.

Next, I'd like to know where my "thinking applies to other things." This debate is over gun control, and that is where I kept my posts. When you say that I said "any one could get a gun even if you banned them [guns]," you are making a mistake. Misinterpreting or misreading, what have you. At that point I had narrowed the subject temporarily down to gangs and guns, and said that gang members almost always steal guns if any are needed. If they are not in trouble with the law to where the person is not allowed to own a gun then, yes, they could possibly pass the requirements for owning a gun. And yes, it's plausible, although very unlikely, for one to steal an innocent citizens' gun. But for that the said one would have to know if the citizen even owned a gun, and would also have to make sure that they were not home or risk getting shot/caught. If the citizen was wise then they would report the missing gun immediately, and therefore they could not get blame lain upon them without solid proof.

Lastly, with no disrespect you do not seem to know much about the restrictions already placed upon guns. It's not so simple as going out and buying one, then going to work the next day bragging "HO-HOH!! I got myself a gun, laddies! What've you gotten yourselves?" Also, my forfeited rounds were because you provided no argument in the first place. I'd appreciate you not implying again that I have no interest in the debate, because that is most certainly not true.

Thank you for debating with me, even though it was obvious we both had things popping up in real life to stop us from posting.

I would like to make a little correction about that, wjmelements -- I used the Amendments as my sources. Specifically, my quoting of the 1st and 2nd Amendments were of the first round, and her internet source of the fifth. Now, I'm not trying to change your opinion on anything, I would just like to point that out.

You seem to be taking what I said out of context. I said as much in the last round of the debate. You based your argument not on the previous arguments but instead on comments of mine. I don't particularly care whose comments you base anything upon, whether they're mine or your own (etc.), but the comments are to clarify/compliment/discourage/rant the debate. Being so if you're going to use them then don't make it obvious and do make a come-back replying to a previous argument.

I did not give points to myself to make me win. I voted fairly, I gave points to my opponent when I thought she did better than I. Additionally, the only in-proper sentences that I have posted has been in the comments. Which my partner earlier said that comments should not be involved when I based my arguments on HER comments. Finally, I am not familiar to debate. com, I am rather new. So I didn't understand how it took votes. So when I saw the votes change from 9 4 to 64 I thought that debate.org made a mistake. Once I learned what had happened I made a reply to my comment stating that I was wrong. I also said that I was sorry that I votes one more time trying to make the votes go back to 94 (because I thought it was supposed to be that way). I feel that it is unjust to dwell on something that I have already apologized for and explained.

I do not feel that my one vote makes a difference. Isn't it fair that I can vote. Doesn't the nominees of presidency get to vote!?!?!

Again I apologize for my additionally votes. I was very confused. I then tried to bring the votes back to as close as possible to 6 4.

Girlwithgoat, any viewers can decide for themselves who to vote for, but if you want to campaign....

Vote Con for typing coherent sentences! I don't allocate unnecessary points to myself like my opponent, who has even said that she voted for herself so that she could win! Actually, I'm not going to add any points in either Pro or Con's favour.